Our Response to Pacesetter's Threatening Letter
Redding, CA 96002
April 1, 2002
Had this been done, we would have had no further complaints and would have accepted the previously mentioned $3,800. You say you choose instead to break down the $16,530 to show your costs, and not ours. This is not quite true, as your costs would not add up to exactly $16,530.Your costs and profits would, however. This is where the confusion arises. What you sent us was your price & profit breakdown, and what you were supposed to send us was our price breakdown. Consumer price breakdowns are very common, and we should not have had to explain this.
We are prepared to accept your offer with the following conditions:
Although we will accept your offer if the above conditions are met, we would still like a complete price breakdown of our cost for the both the $16,530 and the original $24,088.00 quoted, with products, installation, and your profits listed as separate entities.
Your letter states that you do not wish to have legal battles we us. Believe us, we do not wish to have legal battles any more than you do, and we still hold confidence that this situation will be settled fairly. We do not, however, appreciate you mentioning on the very last line of your most recent letter that we have signed a Deed of Trust which is filed against our home as a security. This statement makes it sound as if we are being bullied into accepting the offered settlement, fair or not. As should be completely clear by this point, we are not trying to push this just to see how much money we can get. We are merely seeking to resolve this matter in a fashion that is fair, and nothing more.